THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 1995 TAG: 9501110015
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 60 lines
The new Congress begins with two issues at the top of its agenda - a balanced-budget amendment and a ban on unfunded mandates. Taking them up simultaneously is no coincidence.
A balanced-budget amendment will have to get a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and that's now thought possible. But it will also need to be approved by three-fifths of the states, and that's no sure thing.
Why? Some governors fear a balanced-budget amendment could turn into a grand federal excuse for shipping programs to the states with no money to pay for them. So they want unfunded mandates outlawed before clambering aboard the balanced-budget bandwagon.
You can't blame them for being skittish. Saddling states with unfunded mandates is a dishonest practice that has grown in popularity as revenues have grown tight. It allows Congress to pass popular programs while passing along to states and localities the nasty job of handing the bill to taxpayers. To stop the practice, the tougher version of unfunded mandates legislation should be adopted. Under it, laws could not go into effect without money to pay for them.
As to a balanced budget, it's a goal the federal government had better pursue seriously. Voters have had their consciousness raised and understand that huge deficits require huge interest payments, sap the economy and threaten future prosperity.
The responsibility now falls on the Republicans to quit playing games and offer budgets that lead to balance. The duty of voters is to keep firing legislators and presidents until they hire public servants that will put the government's fiscal house in order. But there are problems with relying on a balanced-budget amendment as a means to that end.
Drafting one that can't be outwitted may not be easy. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was supposed to eliminate the deficit, but legislators found ways around it. Off-budget spending is one popular route, but there's no end to possible flimflam.
Indeed, both the proposed House and Senate versions have built-in loopholes. By a three-fifths vote in each house, Congress can choose to ignore the amendment. In the case of war or ``imminent and serious military threat'' a simple majority can bust the budget.
Then there's the lack of teeth. What happens if the Congress fails to achieve the balance required by the amendment? Nothing. No enforcement mechanism is included in any of the proposed versions.
If Congress failed to offer the balanced budgets required by such an amendment, who would force it to do so? Could courts step in to slash programs or raise taxes? That's a grim thought. At least when legislators are responsible, you can throw the rascals out. But budget-policing judges would be beyond the reach of the public.
Perhaps the debate ahead will clear up these troubling questions. But in any case, the objectives Congress ought to be pursuing are an end to unfunded mandates, a Congress held accountable for getting the budget in balance and a Constitution left alone. by CNB